Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Welfare needs to be eliminated for everyone who is not disabled ( real physical disabilities not these questionable mental ones) and the elderly. Unemployment can be preserved. This 50 year experiment of cash transfers needs to end.
Social security disability is another one, and is the new welfare without end, it needs to be culled to get the bums off of ssd and preserve it for those truly disabled.
Last edited by Ghostrider275452; 01-07-2013 at 05:42 AM..
Let's say that, in a radical attempt to balance the budget, Congress entirely cut spending on SNAP (food stamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), and Medicaid (and they found a loophole around these "mandatory programs" that allowed them to be cut, or declared a special state of emergency).
In addition, in the same year, several states that also fund these programs separately cut their funding by 100% of near that.
What would be the result?
My guess is some or all of the following:
- Huge lines at private relief agencies
- A moderate to dramatic rise in private giving
- Massive rioting in poorer districts of cities, leading to looting, arson, and other crimes
- A rise in "flashmob" and other attacks on stores / gas stations / etc., coordinated by social media
- Attempted assassinations of politicians
- Flood of evictions leading to crime against landlords, mass eviction resistance movements (coordinated by Facebook, Twitter, etc.), rebellious occupation of property by swatters, homelessness
- A drastic rise in property crime rates
- A sharp rise in violent crime rates, often related to property (e.g. assault during robberies)
- A slight uptick in overall employment (including the informal economy)
- An unprecedented boom in the private security industry
- The closure of numerous inner-city grocery stores and corner markets
- Decrease in revenue for supermarkets and food producers in general, but:
- Expanded markets for cheaper food items and discounters
- Decreased prices for medical services and increased incidence of doctors providing "charity care"
- Rises in property, city, and state taxes to fund or expand programs instituted because of the above effects of cutting federal spending
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between giving someone benefits under the name of "Unemployment" or "Welfare"?
You evidently don't know the difference between the two, unemployment is an insurance policy run by your state, both employee and employer pay into it and it is made available to the employee when there is a layoff or the company you work for goes out of business and in some cases when the employee is found to be wrongfully fired. Welfare is funded strictly from tax dollars, unemployment is not, except for federal extensions.
Eliminate welfare and most of America's agricultural, transportation, military and finance industries would collapse within a couple of months. Our entire personal welfare bill is trivial compared to our military spending alone. Stopping corporate welfare would radically change this country and probably for the better.
Let's say that, in a radical attempt to balance the budget, Congress entirely cut spending on SNAP (food stamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), and Medicaid (and they found a loophole around these "mandatory programs" that allowed them to be cut, or declared a special state of emergency).
In addition, in the same year, several states that also fund these programs separately cut their funding by 100% of near that.
What would be the result?
My guess is some or all of the following:
- Huge lines at private relief agencies
- A moderate to dramatic rise in private giving
- Massive rioting in poorer districts of cities, leading to looting, arson, and other crimes
- A rise in "flashmob" and other attacks on stores / gas stations / etc., coordinated by social media
- Attempted assassinations of politicians
- Flood of evictions leading to crime against landlords, mass eviction resistance movements (coordinated by Facebook, Twitter, etc.), rebellious occupation of property by swatters, homelessness
- A drastic rise in property crime rates
- A sharp rise in violent crime rates, often related to property (e.g. assault during robberies)
- A slight uptick in overall employment (including the informal economy)
- An unprecedented boom in the private security industry
- The closure of numerous inner-city grocery stores and corner markets
- Decrease in revenue for supermarkets and food producers in general, but:
- Expanded markets for cheaper food items and discounters
- Decreased prices for medical services and increased incidence of doctors providing "charity care"
- Rises in property, city, and state taxes to fund or expand programs instituted because of the above effects of cutting federal spending
You must be a liberal. Only liberals go for the "all or nothing" approach. In LibLand, fixing entitlements means getting rid of them entirely. Sheesh....
I have observed that the Right Wing is adamant about eliminating welfare for the "improper poor people" while increasing it for big business owners through market protection, price distortion and direct subsidy.
You evidently don't know the difference between the two, unemployment is an insurance policy run by your state, both employee and employer pay into it and it is made available to the employee when there is a layoff or the company you work for goes out of business and in some cases when the employee is found to be wrongfully fired. Welfare is funded strictly from tax dollars, unemployment is not, except for federal extensions.
I know the difference between the two. My question was what is the difference between moving funds from one to the other. Welfare is run by states too. Only three states have unemployment benefits paid into by employees.
I have observed that the Right Wing is adamant about eliminating welfare for the "improper poor people) while increasing it for big business owners through market protection, price distortion and direct subsidy.
Right Wing strongly support Defense Contractor welfare in Baghdad or Riyadh but will adamantly oppose construction of a tunnel or creating of infrastructure job in New York.
Right Wing strongly support Defense Contractor welfare in Baghdad or Riyadh but will adamantly oppose construction of a tunnel or creating of infrastructure job in New York.
Amen. It is so infuriating that the party that proclaims to be the most patriotic does nothing to help Americans! But they will blow money all over the globe to help themselves. UGH
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
eliminate welfare?
